“The situation is worse in north Indian States like Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. In South India, the ratio is better but in those states the incidence of domestic violence is high,” NCW chief said. “In near future, NCW is apprehensive that the country will have around two crore bachelors who will face difficulty in finding a suitable match if the trend of female infanticide continued,” Sharma said quoting data with NCW.

The male-female ratio would drop to such a level that it would be difficult to bridge the gap, Sharma said. NCW was intensifying its awareness campaign to stop female infanticide and killing of female fetuses which was rampant in some parts, particularly north. “The practice continues in most state across the country. Even in Maharashtra, it was rampant in district like Beed,” she added.

Asked if recent stringent law against rape would make any difference, Sharma voiced her reservations saying: “A new set of laws would hardly make a difference. Strong laws were already there. What matters more is implementation. There is need for sensitizing the police force as well as judiciary for faster trials and better conviction rates. Victims, mostly from economically poor background, suffer as the police fail to press correct charges and a weak case does not stand in courts,” Sharma remarked.

The NCW chief noted that after the recent awareness campaigns by social organizations have been effective. “But there is a long way to go and there is need for change of mindset to give women the respect they deserve,” Sharma noted. NCW would soon sign an MoU with Western Railway for creating awareness among railway staff on suburban trains in Mumbai on how to treat female passengers and commuters while travelling and also how to protect and help them in distress.

Sharma, who was here for the inaugural function of “Padharo Rajasthan” festival, said NCW was also initiating steps to curb trafficking from Pakistan, Nepal, China and Bangladesh borders. She said NCW would hold meeting with heads of security forces manning borders to discuss measures to check trafficking.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ordered the Bhopal Memorial Hospital & Research Center (BMHRC), a government body, to disclose information related to drug trials on victims of the 1984 gas tragedy to safeguard “larger public interest.”

The CIC criticised the BMHRC for not initiating the process of collecting testimonies from the “poor, helpless victims,” even after it issued an order. Rachna Dhingra of the Bhopal Group for Information and Action (BGIA) had moved the commission.

Talking to The Hindu, Rachna Dhingra, who has been working with the gas victims, levelled a series of allegations against the hospital. “BMHRC was built to provide free medical care to the gas victims but they started testing [victims] as guinea pigs at the behest of multinational pharmaceutical corporations. As many as 15 trials and 13 deaths in 3 trials have taken place and no action was initiated against the BMHRC doctors, management or pharma companies,” Ms. Dhingra charged.

According to the commission’s initial notice, information was sought on the identity of the persons on whom different drugs were tested from 2000 to 2011; how much funds were received for the trials and the names of the companies which commissioned them; the names of the drugs, the number of patients involved and the number who died; and the minutes of the meetings which approved the trials.

On the basis of Ms. Dhingra’s RTI application, the commission asked the hospital to furnish details within a month which it did not. The hospital said the drug trials were conducted on private individuals and “disclosure of identity of these would compromise their privacy,” which is not permitted under the RTI Act. This argument annoyed the commission as it had instructed the BMHRC to “issue notice to any 25 patients at random on whom drugs were tried” to obtain “their consent for disclosure of their names” as per law.

Central Information Commissioner M.L. Sharma wrote that even if the patients did not agree to disclose information, “it is still open to this Commission to order disclosure.”

“Given the fact that a number of drugs manufactured by foreign/Indian companies were tried on these poor, helpless victims of the gas tragedy, I am of the opinion it would be in the larger public interest to disclose the requested information,” said Mr. Sharma in his order.

Chief Public Relations Officer of BMHRC Mazhar Ullah has been given six weeks’ time to “comply” with the order. Mr. Ullah said that he cannot comment till he received a copy.

Meanwhile, Ms. Dhingra has submitted papers to The Hindu that shows, as on 13.08.2010 the hospital conducted at least 10 drug trials and received an amount of 1,008,5100.

“We have proof that 15 trials were conducted and the money for the other trials are not accounted for,” she said.

Ahmedabad: The IIT-Kanpur Alumni Association has decided to confer on Gujarat IPS officer Rahul Sharma the prestigious Satyendra Dubey Memorial Award. The award is to be presented on March 3 at Kanpur but Sharma has not made up his mind yet on whether to attend the function.

But, there is a big catch here. Clause 12 of All India Service Rules states that if an officer gets an award, he/she has to seek permission of the government before accepting it. The chances of the government granting permission to Sharma to attend the event in Kanpur are nil.

Sharma has been charged-sheeted by the Narendra Modi government for not taking permission before submitting call data records of certain persons to judicial inquiry commissions to prove their complicity in the 2002 post-Godhra riots. The records had helped nail the truth in the Naroda Patia case where former minister Maya Kodnani was among those who were convicted.

Sharma’s records include the phones of Modi’s office, politicians and police officers and, besides revealing who was talking to whom, it shows their movements during the peak hours of rioting on February 28, 2002.

A 1992-batch IPS officer, Sharma is also being recognised as a saviour of 200 children in a madrassa in Bhavnagar which was surround- ed by a mob on

the same day. Sharma was moved out of his position as SP, western railway, on February 26 — a day before the S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express was burnt in Godhra.

He was transferred as SP Bhavnagar and he tackled the Godhra aftermath effectively. Even the Union home minister L K Advani had praised his actions in parliament. But after he submitted the CD in 2004, he has been given sideline postings and harassed by bosses with dozens of memos on the smallest of issues. Presently, he is posted as DIG, Special Reserve Police, Vadodara.

The Supreme Court has said that the Mines and Minerals Act gives no power to the Centre to allocate coal blocks to companies.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned Centre’s power to allocate coal blocks to companies, saying it has a lot of “legal explanation” to do as the statutory Act empowers only the states to undertake this task.

The apex court said that the Centre cannot undermine the the Mines and Minerals Actwhich has given no power to it to allocate coal block to companies.

A bench of justices RM Lodha and J Chelameswar asked the government to go through other legislations particularly the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, to find out whether it is empowered to allocate the resources.

“There is absolutely no power given to the Centre under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. There is no provision overriding the Act. You require to give a lot of legal explanation,” the bench said.

“The question is does the Centre have power under the Act and does it have the power to undermine the entire statutory mechanism. Can you override the statutory provision of the Act… It is very doubtful, legally perhaps,” it said.

Attorney general GE Vahanvati said he does not want to give an out of cuff answers to these questions and sought time to go into these issues.

The bench granted six weeks time to the Centre to respond on the issue.

“From your affidavit itself it appears that minerals and mining lease has to be executed by the state and not by the Centre. It strikes at the root of all the allocation,” the bench said.

The bench was hearing a PIL filed by advocate ML Sharma and various members of civil society including former CEC N Gopalaswami, ex-Navy chief L Ramdas and former Cabinet secretary TSR Subramanian, seeking a SIT probe into the coal block allocation scam.

In an incident that sent shockwaves across Navi Mumbai, a five-year-old girl, who had gone missing on Tuesday evening, was found dead outside her residence in Vashi in the early hours of Wednesday. Medical reports say the child was raped. The police are interrogating the building watchman where the child used to stay with her parents.

The police said the girl�s parents returned home from work on Tuesday evening to find their child missing. Her two brothers were playing with their friends some distance away from the residence and didn�t know where she was. The parents lodged a complaint with the APMC police late on Tuesday night.

�They returned home at around 2:30 am on Wednesday and found her dead body near their house. They rushed back to the police station to inform us and we sent a team with them. The victim�s body was taken to the Navi Mumbai municipal hospital for autopsy,� said a police officer.

The police began the probe working on the assumption that the accused could be a resident of the same locality and would have known when the victim would be alone in the house.

Meanwhile, the hospital sent its preliminary medical report to the police late on Wednesday night. �The reports have confirmed that the victim was raped. We have registered a complaint of murder and rape under the Indian Penal Code and relevant sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,� said Navi Mumbai Police Commissioner A K Sharma.

Opinion on cause of death has been withheld pending further examination.

�We suspect that she was strangled to death. Apart from the injuries to the victim�s private parts and some bruises near the mouth, there were no other external injuries,� Sharma said.

Occupational hazard Rahul Sharma ended his life in March 2012 owing to harassment by a senior
Photo: Rajkumar Soni

SOMETHING SEEMS rotten in the state of Chhattisgarh. On 26 October 2012, H Kujur, additional collector of Narayanpur, was found hanging at his residence. The police found a suicide note, in which Kujur had written that he was under stress, especially for not following a circular with regard to issuance of caste validity certificates the previous year. What’s still not clear is that issues related to issuing caste certificates were not even his prerogative; it’s the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s (SDM).

On 2 March the same year, the Bilaspur superintendent of police (SP) Rahul Sharma, a 2002-batch IPS officer, shot himself with his service revolver. His wife Gayatri Sharma alleged that Sharma was not being allowed to work in an independent manner. In his suicide note, the officer complained about interference by his immediate boss, and harassment by a judge. Sharma’s senior at the time was Inspector General (IG) GP Singh. The judge had allegedly admonished Sharma over the plight of traffic in the city. Sharma had even mentioned he was under tremendous pressure to raise funds for the upcoming Assembly elections: on Facebook, he had written to one of his friends, “They force us to work like bonded labourers. There is no self-respect. I have already been given the target for election expenses. Is this why I studied to become an IPS officer?”

In the same month, on 16 March, Manju Mehta, a project officer with the Panchayat department of Bilaspur, was found hanging at her residence. Her colleagues revealed to TEHELKA, on condition of anonymity, that her honesty had cost Mehta her life. Mehta was taking care of her mother and two disabled brothers when she was transferred to Masturi, about 20 km from Bilaspur, where she was posted as an executive officer. But within days, she was transferred back to Bilaspur. Happy with her posting and promotion, Mehta went back to Bilaspur but she was made to work as an assistant project officer, instead of executive officer. Her colleagues say Manju continued with the work but when questions were raised about her capability and competence, she committed suicide.

Competent and honest employees ending their lives after being tormented is not an isolated phenomenon in Chhattisgarh. Lack of transparency in the administration, corruption at all levels, and the stress associated with work are all pushing employees to the wall.

Pressure from above to sanction payments despite the noticeable discrepancies was too much for Kishore Sharma, a sub-engineer with the water resources department of Abhanpur. Kishore had noticed discrepancies in the construction of the Canal Area Development Authority project that came under his department. He refused to sign the note for the payment to the contractors. According to his wife, Anita Sharma, her husband was being pressurised by Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) Gopal Memon, and an engineer, KR Sahu, for his signature. On 29 July 2012, Kishore hanged himself. In a suicide note, he named Memon and Sahu for this extreme step. It is alleged that both Memon and Sahu have political patronage because of which no criminal case has been filed against them for abetment to suicide.

When on 16 August 2012, Rameshwar Prasad Soni, an executive engineer posted in the Maoist hotbed of Narayanpur district in Bastar set himself on fire, the spotlight was back on the plight of upright officials in the state. Soni’s wife Sarita alleged he was under pressure to overlook corruption.

Another conspicuous void in the state machinery is the shortage of civil servants. In July 2012, replying to a query, Chief Minister Raman Singh admitted that the state was functioning with only 126 IAS officers, against a requirement of 178. The state has been talking to the Centre in this regard but with no success. A senior officer told TEHELKA, on condition of anonymity, that after the creation of the state a large number of officers wanted postings here, both for the challenge and the experience. But of late, due to rampant corruption, upright officers are refusing to come here.

IT IS not just senior officials in the state; suicides due to work-related pressure are becoming common even among the junior staff. On 6 May 2012, Rajuram Ragde, a sweeper with the Balod Municipal Corporation, committed suicide when he was not allowed to report for duty even after being transferred to Arjunda Nagar Panchayat. On 30 July 2011, Bhuvneshwar Dhruv, a constable posted at Dantewada, committed suicide. In August 2012, another constable shot himself fatally with his service rifle. In December, a constable posted at the Mahasamund police station consumed poison and ended his life.

Although there are no official records of the number of suicides by government employees in the state, according to the data available with major police stations of 27 districts, around 200 government employees have committed suicide between 2008 and 2012.

Aruanshu Pariyal, a psychologist based in Chhattisgarh, says the number of government employees coming to him with cases of depression has shot up in the past five years. Most patients complain of work-related stress.

Refusing to acknowledge this, however, is N Baijendra Kumar, principal secretary to the chief minister, who maintains that all state employees should be able to withstand such stress. “We cannot discount personal reasons for the suicides,” he argued. Truth is, discrimination in postings, unnecessary pressure, and a total disregard of honesty is fast turning Chhattisgarh into a burial ground for its state employees.

Being denied of information and humiliated during the hearing of his case on 10th January at the State Information Commission office, Sanskrit scholar and RTI activist Dr Subedar Surinder Sharma turned to the State Human Rights Commission to get justice

Jammu-based soldier, Subedar Surinder Sharma was filled with grief when his sister, in her thirties, died under mysterious circumstances on 29 January 2011. Agitated over the fact that the police recorded the case as ‘suicide’ and not ‘murder’ despite alleged proof in the forensic laboratory’s autopsy report, Sharma invoked the RTI (Right to Information) Act. He asked for inspection of documents of all records pertaining to autopsy as well as “chain of custody” of autopsy samples from the Government Medical College and Hospital in Jammu. He had also requested permission of assistance of his friend Deepak Sharma to be present during inspection as he is not well versed with English—this soldier though is a Sanskrit scholar having done his PhD in it.
The public information officer (PIO) declined information stating he does not have the copy of the autopsy report. Sharma then filed the first appeal but was informed by the First Appellate Authority that they indeed have the copy of the autopsy report but cannot allow inspection as records of other patients would also be revealed. Surinder Sharma, appealed to the FAA that he was only interested in his sister’s report but was denied information.
Hence, he appealed to the State Information Commissioner where his case was pending until he was asked to be present for hearing on 4 January 2013 at the Chief State Information Commission’s office where the case was to be heard.
His friend, Deepak Sharma also filed a separate RTI application on 29 April 2011 asking for the “crime scene observation report” of Surinder Sharma’s sister, from the PIO of the Office of Forensic Laboratory, Jammu. On 26 May 2011, he was denied information under the pretext of Section 8. He filed an appeal with the FAA on 12 July 2011 but was denied information. Deepak Sharma then filed a complaint with the State Information Commission but by a decision on 4 January 2012, the Information Commissioner dismissed the petition stating that the applicant has already received the information from the PIO. States Deepak Sharma, “the Information Commissioner without giving me a notice or hearing my side, gave such an order.” Aggrieved at this “lie, as I had never received the information”, he asked for a review application. Very strangely, the SIC sent back the application to the FAA who once again turned down his request. Finally, Surinder Sharma under media glare, wrote a RTI application with his own blood on 12 October 2012 and submitted it to the PIO. It was then that the SIC took it seriously and the PIO was compelled to give a copy of report.
However, Deepak Sharma’s hearing at the Chief State Information Commissioner’s office on 10 January last week turned ugly. Both the RTI applicants are crying foul over the humiliation meted to them by GR Sufi, Chief State Information Commissioner of Jammu and Kashmir. States Surinder Sharma, “when we sat on the chairs, Mr Sufi asked us to vacate our chairs, saying it is not meant for people like us. He also humiliated us and threatened us that no appeal of ours would be entertained and that any case can be filed against us. He also took objection to my presence to assist Mr Surendra. He said that I am not an advocate. When I brought to his notice that the RTI Act allows assistance from any citizen, not necessarily a lawyer, he was very rude. Shocked at the arrogance we have made a petition to the State Human Rights Commission, to conduct a probe against Mr Sufi for his behavior.”
Chandigarh-based Surendera M. Bhanot, coordinator RTIFED who is campaigning against the arrogance of various information commissioners writes in Humjanenge blog, “Such behaviour of the Information Commissioners has brought the institution of Information Commissions to disrepute. This has opened a new front for the information seeker to approach the Central/State Human Right Commissions. Exactly so, one information seeker has really invoked this right.”
Lately, the information commissioners have come under ire for killing the RTI Act through their insipid orders. Now, it is a bit more serious as one of their fraternity members is alleged of misconduct towards RTI applicants.

It is submitted with deep grief and pain that the complainants were humiliated, harassed, threatened to be implicated in false cases and the fundamental rights of Right to Equality before law, Right to Information, Right to a fair and transparent trial in the court of law, Right to life and liberty, Right to live with human dignity, Right to freedom of speech and expression and Right to enter in any public office were violated by Sh. GR Sufi, State Chief Information Commissioner, Jammu and Kashmir State Information Commission, Jammu.
The complainants would also like to bring in to the kind notice of Hon’ble Chief Minister Sahib that the complainant no. 2 had already submitted a written request to the J&K State Information Commission, dated 30 March 2012, receipt no. 2912, requesting for the videography of his cases pending for trial at J&K State Information Commission, for a fair and transparent trial. But unfortunately, for the reasons best known to the State Information Commission, the Commission remained insensitive and even did not bother to reply the complainant of his request.
The complainants would also like to bring this in to the kind notice of the Hon’ble State Human Rights Commission that the respondent had even himself violated the provisions of the state RTI Act and put the life of the appellants/information seekers on risk. The section 6(2) of the state RTI Act prohibits any personal question, motive and the purpose and use for seeking information, but the respondent had in utter violation of this provision of the Act in his decision no. 45 of SIC/J/Comp., dated 31/10/2011directed the information seeker to apprise him of the purpose of seeking and use of sought information.
The details of the present complaint case and circumstances are as follows:
That a case titled “Surinder Sharma Vs GMC” was listed for hearing in the open courtof Hon’ble Chief State Information Commissioner, Sh. GRSufi on 10/01/2013 at 11am. The applicant along with his duly authorized representative, Sh. Deepak Sharma (Complainant no. 2) approached to the State Information commission office on 10/01/13 at 10.45am.
That both the complainants after showing their presence to the private secretary of the State Chief Information Commissioner , entered in to the open court of State Chief Information Commissioner , Sh. GR Sufi , where the case was listed for hearing.
That both the complainants humbly wished the Hon’ble State Chief Information Commissioner and took their seats. The officials from the GMC, Jammu were already seating on the chairs.
That the State Chief Information Commissioner , Sh.GR Sufi suddenly in a very rude manner ordered the complainants to vacate the chairs immediately , stating the reasons that the complainants have no right and capacity to sit on chairs before him . He also remarked that the complainants and some others like the people of Jammu region do not deserve to sit on chairs before him and only senior officials/ bureaucrats like the officials from GMC, deserve to sit on the chairs before him.
That both the complainants as ordered by the State Chief Information Commissioner immediately vacated their chairs and in standing position requested to start the trial. The complainant no. 1 (Sh. Surinder Sharma ) requested to the Hon’ble State Chief Information Commissioner , that the complainant no. 2 ( Sh. Deepak Sharma) would present the case on his behalf. (This request of the complainant No. 1 was under the provisions laid down in the J&K RTI Act, 2009).
That the State Chief Information Commissioner, while violating the provisions laid down in the J&K RTI Act, 2009, rejected the request of the complainant no. 1 to present complainant no. 2 as his representative, citing the reasons that only an advocate with valid licence can only represent an applicant in the open courts of the Information Commission and since the complainant no. 2 (Sh.Deepak Sharma) is not an advocate , hence the complainant no. 2 could not be allowed to represent the case of complainant no. 1( Sh. Surinder Sharma).
That the complainant no. 2 (Sh.Deepak Sharma) humbly requested to the State Chief Information Commissioner that the J&K RTI Act, 2009 , permits even a non-advocate to represent an applicant and no where in the Act it is mentioned that a non-advocate cannot represent an applicant in the case.
That the State Chief Information Commissioner in a fit of anger ordered the complainants not to speak in front of him, ordered to get out of his court immediately and also warned the complainants not to file any appeal/complaint in the J&K State Information Commission in future . The Hon’ble State Chief Information Commissioner even threatened to implicate the complainants in to false cases and also threatened to teach them a suitable lesson if the complainants approach to any forum against this conduct of the State Chief Information Commissioner and also ordered the complainants not to enter in to the premises of open courts of the Commission and even in the office of J&K state Information Commission.
That the complainants were even not allowed to mark their attendance on the attendance register. That the State Chief Information Commissioner also stated that in future the complainants/appeal under the J&K RTI Act, 2009, from the complainants would not be accepted/entertained by the State Chief Information Commissioner.
Prayer: Through this prayer, the complainants most humbly request to the Hon’ble State Human Rights Commission to conduct an independent probe in this matter, direct the State Chief Information Commissioner to honor the fundamental rights of the complainants ,direct the State Chief Information Commissioner to restrain from filling any false case against the complainants, direct the State Chief Information Commissioner to acknowledge and accept the appeals/complaints filed by the complainants under the provisions of the J&K RTI Act, 2009, direct the J&K State Information Commission to conduct the videography of all the cases of the complainants for a fair and transparent trail, direct State Chief Information Commissioner, Sh.GR Sufi not to restrict the entry of the complainants in open courts of the commission, not to restrain the entry of the complainants in the premises of J&K State Information Commission both in Jammu and Srinagar office, the State Chief Information Commissioner may also be directed not to infringe the rights of the complaints to seek information under J&K RTI Act from state public authorities, the State Chief Information Commissioner may also be directed not to violate Section 6(2) of the state RTI Act and not to put the lives of innocent information seekers on the radar of the corrupt elements by asking about the use of sought information, or to award any other suitable relief to the complainants as this commission may deemed appropriate.

Dated:

Surinder Sharma (complainant no. 1)

Deepak Sharma (Complainant no. 2)

R/o Mandlik Bhawan, 412-C,

Jeevan Nagar, Jammu – 180010

Mob. +919419110579

Breach of Human Rights

RTI activist moves SHRC against CIC Sufi

Jammu 14January 2013: A complaint has been filed in the Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission against GR Sufi, the State Chief Information Commissioner on the allegations that he has humiliated , harassed and violated human right of the complainant.
A complaint dated 14 January 2013 has been filed with the SHRC through its secretary by one Sh Deepak Sharma of Jammu. In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that GR Sufi not only violated the fundamental rights of the complainant, but he has also threatened the victim to implicate him in a false case. It is also submitted in the prayer that CIC has restricted the entry of the complainant in the State Information Commission and had also verbally directed the victim not to file any RTI application with any Public Authority in future.
The three- page complaint further alleged that respondent GR Sufi, State Chief Information Commissioner, did not allow the complainant to remain present in the open court of the Commission during its proceeding on 10 January 2013, in a case titled “Surinder Sharma Vs Govt.Medical College, Jammu”. The complaint further states that the respondent not only asked the complainant to get out of the open court (RTI Commission Court) but also in a very rude manner ordered him to vacate the chair where he was sitting stating that the complainant as an ordinary citizen had no right to sit on chair and only senior officials/bureaucrats deserve to sit on chairs.
The respondent had also asked the victim not to approach the RTI Commission with any complaint/appeal under the RTI Act, as the Commission would not accept/entertain the same.
Prior to this appeal to the State Human Rights Commision , Deepak Sharma had already made a request dated 30 March 2012, with the State Information Commission for videography of all his cases for a fair and transparent proceedings in the commission but till date the Commission has not taken any decision on his letter for videography.
In his prayer, the complainant Deepak Sharma has urged the State Human Rights Commission to conduct an independent probe in this matter and direct the respondent,GR Sufi to honour the fundamental rights of the complainant and also to restrain him from filling any false case against the complainant and also to accept and entertain the appeals under RTI Act and not to restrict the entry of the complainant in the open court of the commission and the office complex of the commission as the complainant as a citizen has fundamental right of right to entry in any public office.
Another RTI activist had also filed an RTI application with the State Information Commission on 10 January 2013, where he has asked the Information Commission for providing the names and designations of the persons who are entitled to sit on chairs installed in the open court of CIC, GR Sufi. He has also asked the total amount spent by Sh. GR Sufi from his own pocket for the purchase of any furniture in the open court.”

Indore: A photographer, who had taken the photos at the murder spot of RTI activist Shehla Masood, today deposed before the Special CBI court here and was cross examined by defence counsels in the case.

Photographer S C Sharma, who accompanied the forensic science experts after Shehla was allegedly murdered outside her house in Bhopal on August 16, 2011, appeared before the Special CBI Court of Justice Anupam Srivastava.

During cross examination by defence counsel A J Bhojwani, Sharma told the court that while taking pictures, the bullet could not be spotted from outside.

The witness also showed the court 22 pictures that he took with a camera using a “roll” (not digital camera).

While being cross examined by defence counsel Sunil Srivastava, Sharma admitted that he had not entered the log book of his visit to the site, nor signed anywhere in the official register. Prints were made out of the negative film and were handed over to the competent authority, the photographer told the court.

Later, defence lawyer Sunil Srivastava told reporters that the photos were taken “illegally” by not observing official norms.

“The prosecution witness could not reply from where he brought the camera and roll. The film was developed either in an outside studio or private institution,” Srivastava alleged. The trial will now continue on December 13.

Zahida Pervez, an interior designer, has been named as the prime accused in the case by CBI along with four others.

Mungekar, who was appointed commissioner of enquiry by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, apart from making wide-ranging recommendations, has suggested that Rs 10 lakh be paid as compensation to student Manish and others towards court and other expenses. “The mental trauma that they were/are made to undergo is not measurable in terms of money,” Mungekar said in his report.

He also demanded legal action under Prevention of Atrocities against SCs/STs Act against former principal V K Sharma, head of physiology department Shobha Das, principal Jayashree Bhattacharjee and Raj Kapoor, professor of physiology and a liaison officer for “resorting to caste-based discrimination and neglecting the duties assigned to them, not by omissions, but by commissions”.

The case relates to 35 SC students who appeared for the first professional examination in July 2010 and failed in the subject of physiology. Twenty-five of them failed again in the same subject despite the fact that many passed in other subjects. Mungekar said when students tried to meet college authorities, they were not entertained and had to resort to RTI to get information.

It was found that one student’s marks in physiology was shown lesser in the marksheet than what he had actually got. But, he said, no action was taken against the head of the department Shobha Das who said it was a typographical error. Even liaison officer Raj Kapoor refused to entertain them.

Students who failed in physiology requested the then principal V K Sharma to allow them to attend classes for the second year but were refused. The students went to Delhi High Court which allowed them to attend classes but the college took a long time to implement the order. As a result, most of them did not have requisite attendance. Students again approached the HC requesting that they be allowed to take supplementary examination.

They were allowed and most of them passed as the examination was conducted in the Army College of Medical Sciences under close supervision of the court. But it was a short reprieve as Sharma forced them to attend classes with the fresh batch. “They were again to lose one more year,” Mungekar said.

Students were not permitted to appear for the examination to be held in November 2011. Again, Delhi HC intervened and asked the college to take students who had cleared supplementary in second year and factor in their attendance. But the college did not relent. More shocking was the revelation that four students of general category, detained for inadequate attendance, were allowed to take the examination. Mungekar met the vice-chancellor and requested him to explore all possibilities but a decision is awaited.